Abstract

Experience governs neurogenesis from radial-glial neural stem cells (RGLs) in the adult hippocampus to support memory. Transcription factors in RGLs integrate physiological signals to dictate self-renewal division mode. Whereas asymmetric RGL divisions drive neurogenesis during favorable conditions, symmetric divisions prevent premature neurogenesis while amplifying RGLs to anticipate future neurogenic demands. The identities of transcription factors regulating RGL symmetric self-renewal, unlike those that regulate RGL asymmetric self-renewal, are not known. Here, we show in mice that the transcription factor Kruppel-like factor 9 (Klf9) is elevated in quiescent RGLs and inducible, deletion of Klf9 promotes RGL activation state. Clonal analysis and longitudinal intravital 2-photon imaging directly demonstrate that Klf9 functions as a brake on RGL symmetric self-renewal. In vivo translational profiling of RGLs lacking Klf9 generated a molecular blueprint for RGL symmetric self-renewal that was characterized by upregulation of genetic programs underlying Notch and mitogen signaling, cell-cycle, fatty acid oxidation and lipogenesis. Together, these observations identify Klf9 as a transcriptional regulator of neural stem cell expansion in the adult hippocampus.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE164889.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nannan Guo

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kelsey D McDermott

    Dominick Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yu-Tzu Shih

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Haley Zanga

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Debolina Ghosh

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Charlotte Herber

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. William R Meara

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. James H Coleman

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Alexia Zagouras

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0899-0910
  10. Lai Ping Wong

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Ruslan I Sadreyev

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. J Tiago Gonçalves

    Dominick Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Amar Sahay

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    asahay@mgh.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0677-1693

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R56NS117529)

  • J Tiago Gonçalves

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R56NS117529)

  • Amar Sahay

NA

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animals were handled and experiments were conducted in accordance with procedures approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at the Massachusetts General Hospital (2011N000084 ) and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in accordance with NIH guidelines.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joseph G Gleeson, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University, United States

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: July 14, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: July 14, 2021
  3. Accepted: January 3, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: January 4, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: February 4, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Guo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,944
    Page views
  • 425
    Downloads
  • 8
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Nannan Guo
  2. Kelsey D McDermott
  3. Yu-Tzu Shih
  4. Haley Zanga
  5. Debolina Ghosh
  6. Charlotte Herber
  7. William R Meara
  8. James H Coleman
  9. Alexia Zagouras
  10. Lai Ping Wong
  11. Ruslan I Sadreyev
  12. J Tiago Gonçalves
  13. Amar Sahay
(2022)
Transcriptional regulation of neural stem cell expansion in adult hippocampus
eLife 11:e72195.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72195

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Connon I Thomas, Melissa A Ryan ... Benjamin Scholl
    Research Article

    Postsynaptic mitochondria are critical for the development, plasticity, and maintenance of synaptic inputs. However, their relationship to synaptic structure and functional activity is unknown. We examined a correlative dataset from ferret visual cortex with in vivo two-photon calcium imaging of dendritic spines during visual stimulation and electron microscopy reconstructions of spine ultrastructure, investigating mitochondrial abundance near functionally and structurally characterized spines. Surprisingly, we found no correlation to structural measures of synaptic strength. Instead, we found that mitochondria are positioned near spines with orientation preferences that are dissimilar to the somatic preference. Additionally, we found that mitochondria are positioned near groups of spines with heterogeneous orientation preferences. For a subset of spines with a mitochondrion in the head or neck, synapses were larger and exhibited greater selectivity to visual stimuli than those without a mitochondrion. Our data suggest mitochondria are not necessarily positioned to support the energy needs of strong spines, but rather support the structurally and functionally diverse inputs innervating the basal dendrites of cortical neurons.

    1. Neuroscience
    Weiwei Qui, Chelsea R Hutch ... Darleen Sandoval
    Research Article

    Several discrete groups of feeding-regulated neurons in the nucleus of the solitary tract (nucleus tractus solitarius; NTS) suppress food intake, including avoidance-promoting neurons that express Cck (NTSCck cells) and distinct Lepr- and Calcr-expressing neurons (NTSLepr and NTSCalcr cells, respectively) that suppress food intake without promoting avoidance. To test potential synergies among these cell groups we manipulated multiple NTS cell populations simultaneously. We found that activating multiple sets of NTS neurons (e.g., NTSLepr plus NTSCalcr (NTSLC), or NTSLC plus NTSCck (NTSLCK)) suppressed feeding more robustly than activating single populations. While activating groups of cells that include NTSCck neurons promoted conditioned taste avoidance (CTA), NTSLC activation produced no CTA despite abrogating feeding. Thus, the ability to promote CTA formation represents a dominant effect but activating multiple non-aversive populations augments the suppression of food intake without provoking avoidance. Furthermore, silencing multiple NTS neuron groups augmented food intake and body weight to a greater extent than silencing single populations, consistent with the notion that each of these NTS neuron populations plays crucial and cumulative roles in the control of energy balance. We found that silencing NTSLCK neurons failed to blunt the weight-loss response to vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) and that feeding activated many non-NTSLCK neurons, however, suggesting that as-yet undefined NTS cell types must make additional contributions to the restraint of feeding.